It may be a straight forward "fix". When the distribution is ready for release make any references to version 14.2 show version 14.3 instead, move the files to a 14.3 version in the source code control system, and follow the usual release process. I heard that computers are good at this sort of thing.

Mr. Volkerding can label the next release version anything he wants. The 14.2 stable release does not yet exist (as far as I know). The next Slackware release will run just as well, whether it is named 14.2 or 14.3.

It is very common to refer to the eventual release when dealing with Alphas, Betas, and Release Candidates. You will see it with almost all software releases that use alphas, betas, and/or RCs.

I doubt we'll see any adjustments to the expected version.

I get your point, but it doesn't make much sense to call it 14.2 Release Candidate and then eventually release it as 14.3. That would mean it was 14.3 Release Candidate.

Some entries in the ChangeLog could document the process. Y'all never had a project/product postponed/relabeled/re-purposed close to a release?

I only mention the issue with using LQ as a technical reference for Slackware 14.2. I see this as a problem due to imprecise version references by us LQ members and the long time period involved where the ever changing "-current" version had a static release version label assigned to it by posters.

I can see where version labeling could be considered more important than the search usefulness of a primary technical reference for Slackware 14.2 (this forum). Arguments can be made either way. I just wanted to point out a potential problem I saw.

This is a great response and keeps with the general tone of the thread! My posts were too serious for this thread.

Well I for one have been trying to only refer to current as current. I did call it 14.2 rc1 at first but I guess that was never really official? I doubt that it really matters that much.

I think of "14.2 RCx" as simply tags that refer to particular snapshots of -current.

Isn't that obvious? How else could you describe them, really?

Changing a release name because of some vague potential confusion that might result from careless references in random posts in some future search results, maybe... would be silly (IMO) and has many implications, none of them good.

Shaken not stirred...

2 members found this post helpful.

It is official in that it was directly labeled that in the changelog, but it doesn't put out any official RC1 ISOs. As astrogeek mentioned, it is simply just a tag regarding that specific date. -current is different from a lot of software development, because we see the changes live and there's no official release until a stable is put out. Most projects will release official beta and RCs (sometimes alphas and pre-alphas, depending on the project), and then the changes between those will only be seen if you check out their repo. With Slackware, you only get the "repo" and an occasional tag thrown in labeling the current state of the project. Once it runs through those stages, it will eventually be released as stable 14.2.

As for previous forum references to 14.2 during the development, there were also references to Slackware 15, when it wasn't known what the next version will be. I doubt we want to skip that version too, just because of some references on a forum.

And, in all honesty, many times the version of Slackware doesn't matter since many of the issues/fixes aren't tied to a specific release. Someone who is struggling getting X to start will have very similar troubleshooting steps and similar fixes to previous versions of Slackware. The only major change that I can think of that will prevent some of the previous posts from being relevant is the switch from alsa to pulseaudio.

Referring only to "-current" would be even less useful (whatever the time, the forum contains reference to it...).

I would argue that referring to "14.2 RC1" or even just "14.2" is actually more useful. If you are interested only in post-realease posts, just ignore the posts before the release date.

It may also be useful to find (before the release date) issues that have been raised and suggestions that could have been ignored or just not applicable at the post time.

1 members found this post helpful.

It is official in that it was directly labeled that in the changelog, but it doesn't put out any official RC1 ISOs.

I though I had downloaded official ISOs from the Slackware site before, Version 9 comes to mind but I could very well be wrong

Of course this adds little to the current discussion.

About the only thing about an actual release as opposed to current and release candidates is that I hesitate to commit myself to a moving target

As most probably agree I don't care what it is called and I am sure I can figure out weather a hit on a forum search is applicable to my situation so that is not really an issue for me. Besides if I can't get it to work I'll ask and this forum is probably one of the best for getting help when you need it.

I think we got off topic a long time ago, plus Pat came and answered the question directly.

That is why my desktop is still on 14.1 and my HTPC is on a version of -current from last Oct (had to use -current for hardware support) I don't like the moving targets on my primary machines, so I tend to keep those where they're at when they're stable.

It really depends on the hight of the foam when pouring a beer. It seems to me at some point Pat will take it to a "holwe" "notha" "level"

Well I am running 3 current setups and one 14.1 that I use for actual stuff

The current setups are to insure that all the software I want to use works before I jump in with both feet so to speak

So far everything seems to be working as expected I have used Slackware for so long the other distributions tend to bug me as they seem to hold your hand and restrict me too much for my liking

I also use the BSD variants on occasion but they seem strange to me.

I like the idea of 14.2

But whatever it's all the same in the end no matter what it gets called

fort.it.twoed ~= 14.2

Took me some time to realize that 1492 is the year Columbus discovered America....nice one!

1 members found this post helpful.